[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
andrei.robachevsky at gmail.com
Mon Feb 9 13:58:27 CET 2015
FYI. There is some discussion going on in the IETF (IANAPLAN WG) on how
to answer Alissa's question.
IMO, the proposals are indeed incompatible only if the IETF opposes the
change. And only in this case an action would be required from our side.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 18:48:23 +0800
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
CC: ianaplan at ietf.org
The IETF proposal did not set it as a requirement that ownership of
IANA.ORG be transferred as a part of the transition. The RIR community
needs to think if they believe it really is a requirement. But I guess that
the question for us is from the IETF perspective, if other communities
believe they need that, is the IETF community OK with that? If we are,
there are some implications to the IETF Trust, some rules to think about
for various future same/different/partially different IANA operator
and some negotiations about these. I think we can set most of that aside
for the moment, as details to worry about later. But what is the high-level
guidance from the IETF community on this?
From my perspective the question that we should try to answer at the
IETF is as follows. While we are (in my opinion) not changing our
proposal - it stays at the not required state, is the IETF community
OK with a change of ownership? The IETF and RIR proposals are
only incompatible if they require the change _and_ we oppose it.
FWIW, my read of the earlier discussion in IANAPLAN was that
our opinion was not required rather than that wed oppose it. If
that is right, then the answer is perhaps that wed be fine with
that. Do I read that right, and what do others think?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the CRISP